In November 2003, Deputy Prosecutor General Vladimir Kolesnikov, after loud statements in the case of M. Khodorkovsky (that, alas, he cannot give more than ten years to the head of Yukos, and that "those who are not yet , should think about what they are doing in the end" ) took the initiative to review the place of the Central Bank in the economic system of Russia.
On November 12, 2003, at a meeting of the "Security First" round table organized by the LDPR faction, he stated that the Bank of Russia had turned into "some kind of private company " that gives loans at high interest rates and is not responsible for the government's debts. And the very next day, November 13, V. Kolesnikov said that the Central Bank "should become a state structure and be subordinate to the government or the president of the country, and the loan interest (apparently, the refinancing rate of the Central Bank was meant - ed. ) should be equal to zero" .
This statement, as it became clear later, left without any consequences for both the Central Bank of Russia and Mr. Kolesnikov. However, experts were not slow to comment.
And if the official newspaper of the Russian government only pointed out that Mr. Kolesnikov was trying to interfere in issues in which, to put it mildly, he had little competence, and reminded readers that the system proposed by the "economist in uniform" inevitably leads to the collapse of the state economy , then Izvestia commented on these speeches more harshly.
The newspaper pointed out that the prosecutor's statements contradict not only the law on the Central Bank, which states that "the state is not liable for the obligations of the Bank of Russia, and the Bank of Russia - for the obligations of the state, if they have not assumed such obligations or unless otherwise provided by federal laws ", and which V. Kolesnikov may not know, but also the Constitution, which spells out the independence of the Central Bank from "other state authorities." "It is hardly possible to suspect the Deputy Prosecutor General that he does not know the Constitution ... He certainly knows. And in this case, he is either advocating for its change, or inciting "public authorities" to violate it," the newspaper makes an assumption .
Sources